TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Anderson v. Kolb

In the Matter of Sheldon Anderson v. Lawrence C. Kolb, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene

Anderson v. Kolb, 76 A.D.2d 808 (1980)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 24, 1980
Citations
76 A.D.2d 808429 N.Y.S.2d 1991980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11841

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 7, 1979 and October 1, 1979, respectively, modified, on the law, to the extent of reversal thereof, excepting only that portion which granted the cross motion of respondent commissioner of mental hygiene dismissing only that portion of the petition seeking vacatur of the award of the arbitrator, without costs. In a departmental disciplinary proceeding on charges of neglectful performance of duty, petitioner, an employee of the State Department of Mental Hygiene, sought arbitration, in accordance with contract provisions, by way of appeal from a sanction imposed on him. Petitioner did not present his appeal until the contractually set time for filing had passed, and the arbitrator dismissed his appeal accordingly. Not moving against the arbitrator’s award under CPLR article 75 he attacked it under article 78, moving by the same petition against the original notice of discipline. Special Term granted a cross motion to dismiss that portion of the petition seeking to vacate the determinative award, which should have ended the matter. However, then proceeding in excess of jurisdiction, Special Term reviewed the evidence and set aside the disciplinary determination, vacating the disciplinary sanction imposed on petitioner. Strangely enough, this was done by the same decision which held, properly, in granting the cross motion, that "the court is without power to vacate the award were it so disposed.” It is observed in passing that, even were a petition under article 78 a correct remedy, it was brought untimely, more than four months after the determination by the department of mental hygiene (CPLR 217). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sandler, Ross and Markewich, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list